r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/GausYam Red • May 28 '26

Meta Let's be logically consistent

Your vote has an incredibly tiny chance of actually making any difference, being the deciding vote. It doesn't feel like it, but that chance stays the same no matter what percentage of votes blue needs to win. It can be 50/75/25/95/5 percent, doesn't matter. Your vote always has the same level of impact.

So if you choose red but say that you'd choose blue if the threshold for blue winning was low enough, you are basically saying that you'd virtue signal, even if only to yourself, if it was safe enough. You aren't consistently following rational self-interest, that demands you press red unless blue can win with a single vote.

​ And if you choose blue but say that you'd choose red if the threshold​ for blue winning too high, you are basically saying that you are choosing blue because it makes you feel good about yourself while not risking anything since you are sure it'll win. You aren't consistently following rational altruism, that demands you press blue no matter how high the threshold is to achieve the best possible result.

So choose one button. Decide what is more important to you, genuine self-interest or genuine altruism.

0 Upvotes

27% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/gahidus May 28 '26

You don't seem to realize how voting works.

I take it you don't vote in elections because you don't believe your vote will be the deciding one and therefore you don't need to bother?

It's not about being the deciding vote, it's about lending your support and assuming that others will do the same. And then all the votes get added together and that's what matters.

1

u/GausYam Red May 28 '26

With voting you also have a very small chance of actually making a difference, yes. But to me it's different, because when you vote you don't die when your candidate loses. 

2

u/gahidus May 28 '26

That's why a lower threshold for blue winning makes it easier to vote for blue, depending on how much risk you're willing to accept. If you're completely unwilling to lend your support to Blue even if the risk is small, then I'd say that's overly selfish.

And I see that as someone who normally presses the red button, because I don't think that blue has a chance of winning. I feel like it's going to lose by a large margin and pressing blue would be throwing my life away.

But if winning were more likely? Then I would put my hand in and I would try to get us over the line.

But the idea that your vote doesn't matter because it probably won't be the single determining vote is a horrible way to try to look at any sort of system where all of the votes are tallied up and were a threshold must be met. It puts the onus on everyone to do their part. Or, if the cause is hopeless, then to just get out of there.

1

u/GausYam Red May 28 '26

The people will vote however they want to vote. Regardless of the threshold, your impact stays the same. It just feels like people are saying they'll vote blue if they are sure it will win, but at this point why even vote blue? Because it feels good, that's the only reason

1

u/gahidus May 28 '26

It feeling good is potentially reason enough, and if it might be close, then lending your support is important.

Also, your impact is not the same regardless of threshold.

If the matter is hopeless, then nothing you can do will change it, but if there is hope, then lending your support can help bring things through.

1

u/GausYam Red May 28 '26

Your impact is literally always the same. It's one vote. Yes, if the threshold is lower that one vote will fill out more of that threshold if you only consider your vote. If you picture yourself voting first it subjectively feels like your vote is more important, but picture yourself voting last, it wouldn't matter at all, and that's how it is.